A Functional Analysis of American Vice Presidential Debates

Abstract

This study content analyzed the seven American vice presidential debates held in 1976 and from 1984–2004. Acclaims were more common than attacks, which in turn occurred more frequently than defenses. Vice presidential candidates attacked more and defended less in debates than presidential candidates. In the vice presidential debates, more attacks were made by challengers and losers than their counterparts. These running mates discussed policy more frequently than character, but emphasized policy somewhat less—and leadership ability more—than presidential candidates. Democrats, incumbents, and winners emphasized policy more than their counterparts. Incumbents acclaimed more, and attacked less, on past deeds than challengers. Finally, these vice presidential candidates used general goals and ideals more to acclaim than attack. Implications for political campaign discourse are discussed.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 26 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.